Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Backin72 (talk | contribs)
5,347 edits
Line 526: Line 526:
::Hi CIreland -- At what point does something become '''"stale'''" around here? I filed the report <3hr after SA's last revert; you replied and deemed the issue "stale" <24hr after I filed. That's pretty quick turnaround in real time. Please explain what I need to do to avoid such stale-ness in the future.
::Hi CIreland -- At what point does something become '''"stale'''" around here? I filed the report <3hr after SA's last revert; you replied and deemed the issue "stale" <24hr after I filed. That's pretty quick turnaround in real time. Please explain what I need to do to avoid such stale-ness in the future.
::As for "moot", since SA's already under an unrelated 48-hour block, here's an idea: why can't ''another'' block, for this conduct, be set when the present one expires? Doesn't it make sense to be lenient when offenses are few and far between, and get tough when an editor gets involved in a string of sanctionable offenses? Particularly in the case of long-term disruptive editors like SA, whose block log I pointed to? I really don't get the logic here, and I think you're sending the wrong message by not sanctioning. thanks, [[User:Jim Butler|Jim Butler]] ([[User talk:Jim Butler|t]]) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::As for "moot", since SA's already under an unrelated 48-hour block, here's an idea: why can't ''another'' block, for this conduct, be set when the present one expires? Doesn't it make sense to be lenient when offenses are few and far between, and get tough when an editor gets involved in a string of sanctionable offenses? Particularly in the case of long-term disruptive editors like SA, whose block log I pointed to? I really don't get the logic here, and I think you're sending the wrong message by not sanctioning. thanks, [[User:Jim Butler|Jim Butler]] ([[User talk:Jim Butler|t]]) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::: The reason we wouldn't set another block after the first one, is that blocks for edit-warring are intended to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Once someone stops edit-warring, the block is no longer regarded as useful, as it would be stopping someone from doing something that they'd already stopped anyway. However, once the current block expires, if ScienceApologist does start edit-warring again, he will probably be blocked or banned again fairly quickly. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:97.102.156.246]] reported by - [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - (Result: 31 hours) ==
== [[User:97.102.156.246]] reported by - [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - (Result: 31 hours) ==

Revision as of 04:35, 2 December 2008


    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son


    RetroS1mone reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: no vio)

    • 1st revert: [6], contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits: [7][8]
    • 2nd revert: [9], contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits: [10][11]
    • 3rd revert: [12], reverting the following edit: [13]
    • 4th revert: [14], reverting the following edit: [15]
    • 5th revert: [16]
    • Diff of warning: [17]

    User is editwarring on multiple articles, basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion. User seems to be stalking me, showing up at an article that he normally doesn't edit only to delete my one remaining edit. Between him and Orangemarlin on Fibromyalgia, they have deleted most of a full day's work. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guido has listed five reverts to five different pages in this posting and should probably be sanctioned for abusing this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned this at WP:ANI and Guido has refused to modify or remove this frivolous report. Verbal chat 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do none of you ever read any policies?
    For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages... (WP:EDITWAR) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't shown edit warring occurring on any of those pages, let alone multiple pages. Verbal chat 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs are right there, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So is your contention that anyone that reverts the same editor anywhere on the project, more than four times, within a "protracted" period of time, is edit warring? Because if it is I think your reasoning is highly faulty. There has to be some edit warring first. Verbal chat 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editwarring is an attitude; the number of reverts is by itself not decisive. The key element here is that user reverts my every edit on sight. What I content is that if you recognize the common denominator in all these reverts, you may better understand what is going on. That, however, requires some knowledge of the topic, which you may not possess. Wikipedia is weak that way. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome and Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome in both cases R only reverted one of G's edits, so clearly isn't blind-reverting. In both cases an edit comment offered a plausible explanation for the revert, so I don't think basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion. is a reasonable description of the situation. This is your second rejected report in as many days; don't make a third William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no way of knowing beforehand whether a report is going to be rejected, so basically you're saying that I should never again make a report but instead simply allow my every edit to be reverted without protest. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you to every one that defended me today, this is intolerable behavior for editor just off month block. Guido, you can know beforehand a report is going to be rejected when what you are reporting is not edit warring. Here is quote from WP 3RR, "A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." so is obvious, Orangemarlin reverted most twice, I reverted most once. Pls do not waste peoples time like this again. RetroS1mone talk 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a separate edit on a 6th article!! I explained my edits, I was changing POV and original research by Guido and a IP. RetroS1mone talk 07:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Explaining' your edits does not give you a free pass to revert at will. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no violation, no need to explain. Please drop this Guido. Verbal chat 10:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow edit warring at Tatars (result: block; semi)

    This has been going on for ages, and there is little sign of any attempts to discuss. Can someone protect the page or something?--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked User:Fnr Kllrb 48h for edit warring etc. Also SoWhy (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Tatars: IP edit-warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)))) (undo) which should help William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Thunderer reported by BigDunc (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [19]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: Editor is aware of 3RR having previous blocks for edit warring

    Editor is just finished a 3RR block on North Irish Horse and has continued to add a copyvio image back to this article dispite being asked not to. Editor also went to the image page to try and fudge his reverts. He is also in breach of Arb enforced 1RR on this article.BigDuncTalk 15:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The removal of the copyvio has been supported by an admin here. BigDuncTalk 15:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor is now blanking large portions of the article here BigDuncTalk 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    82.198.140.206 reported by Guliolopez (Result: No action)




    As above, anon has repeatedly reverted requests for citations. (Fact tags were placed on assertions that represented POV/commentary). User has also been warned for removing similar requests for sources on other articles. User has also ignored requests (and engaged in similar warring activities) where cite challenges have been made elsewhere. (User repeatedly claims that requests for sources represents "vandalism". Guliolopez (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Any special reason why I should block the anon rather than you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Em. Possibly for the simple reason that I didn't breach 3RR. While it is true to say that I updated the page 4 times today, I didn't breach 3RR. Firstly because only 2 of my edits could be were "reverts". The other was addressing a specific issue- separately. And in my 4th edit on that page today - the one I assume you are suggesting represented a 3RR breach - I EXPLICITLY avoiding re-adding the CN tags. (Which is the contentious issue with the anon.) Beyond that, I was trying to address the issue on the users talkpage and the article talk page (and the anon wasn't responding). I was measured and reasoned in my edits and edit summaries. I was editing as a means of upholding the relevant guidelines. Etc. Frankly I'm a little taken aback by the suggestion that upholding VER and NPOV is a blockable "offence". The 3RR rule is in place to prevent "edit warring" - which I don't believe I was engaged in. Guliolopez (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [24], [25], [26], [27] are all reverts, though not quite within 24h, but close enough. Read WP:REVERT if you're in doubt. There is no exception in WP:3RR for Upholding the Truth William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - I'm not sure it's not worth debating it, but the last edit (and therefore alleged "breach" edit) wasn't intended to be a "revert". I can understand that it might be seen to be problematic in terms of the "in whole or in part" consideration in the guideline. However it was actually intended (in good faith) to tidy up some of the issues which arose in the intervening reversions. (In fact I explicitly avoided the apparently contentious issue - and deliberately left the contentious content out of the scope of that change.) I also accept the comment that "upholding guidelines" is not an exception under 3RR. Anyway, I am sure your question was simply intended to give me pause on my own editting behaviour in this case. It has - and I appreciate the reminder. I would therefore simply answer your original question this way: "Because I don't believe the spirit of the guideline was broken. But your point is well taken". Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    69.209.218.231 reported by Mhking (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [28]



    This user (Under at least two different IP addresses) persists in reverting Miller Beach to reflect NPOV content regarding the status of the neighborhood of Miller within Gary, Indiana. The original town of Miller was absorbed by Gary around 100 years ago. The edits that the user posts are all non-sourced, and reflect his personal agenda tied to the secession of the Miller neighborhood from the city of Gary. He has been warned multiple times regarding his NPOV edits.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]


    I have, on the advice of another admin, posted a 3RR warning, and am pursuing this course of action in conjunction with that. --Mhking (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotected Miller Beach one month. Edit warring, one editor who appears to have three different IP socks, who has yet to provide any sources for his material. Note this edit, which inserts a paragraph of editorial comment into the middle of the article, discussing the resentment felt by the present-day Miller citizens against their annexation by Gary. Edit summary: Gary idoits... stop changing this page... Leave us alone Your city is a hellhole stop looking to Miller as an exception. Protection can be lifted early if consensus is reached on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result: Declined)

    Date delinker (talk · contribs) is a sock/alt account of Ohconfucius (talk · contribs). Ohconfucius is currently involved in a dispute about whether or not date links should be automatically removed. He was warned not to remove date links in articles from either of his accounts or he might be blocked. Note that this user has used his alt account to edit while blocked in the past in (block evasion) so both accounts should be blocked if that is the result. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh, this really is harassment of the first order. This is totally out of order. Cole is stalking me, once again, still accusing me of date-delinking. I have already stopped doing what what I have been asked to do, because he has been so nice about it ;-). Well I am getting tired of having to go through this yet once again. I would applaud him for his tenacity, though he must be getting really desperate to screw me. Evidently, it appears that he has combed through every single one of my 80 entries from yesterday, and he has found more evidence of "massive date-delinking" (Gasp! Shock, horror!). Congratulations! out of the eighty articles and god-only-knows how many links undone, he found that I have delinked a grand total of 3 date instances and one solitary year, all of which are buried somewhere deep in the core of the articles concerned. Any reasonable person would say that these are totally incidental bearing in mind the semi-automated tools used to convert dates from mdy to dmy format. It must be pretty darn obvious that this is something quite personal for Cole, and that I am already doing my utmost to avoid him. Yet he still insists in following me around wikipedia and reporting me at every turn. Not a day goes by that I don't have to look over my shoulder, and to come here and review the entries. Please tell Cole to go away and quit bugging me. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You were instructed to cease date delinking activites until the matter is resolved. I stopped reverting your project wide changes with the understanding that any such reversion would result in my being blocked. If, however, this is no longer the situation I will happily begin reverting you because you have no consensus for forcing your changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ohconfucius is also removing links from tables in contravention of the Manual of Style concerning tables. See, for example, the Date delinker edits to the Conchita Martinez article. He should stop making these kinds of edits and fix the damage he's done already. Tennis expert (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The moratorium existed because of the absence of consensus on the issue. Looking at both relevant RFCs on the issue, consensus is now much clearer so I have no mind to block on the basis of edit warring. However, I do have doubts about whether this is an appropriate task for automated or semi-automated tools since often the date-link may need to be replaced with a "See also" link to a relevant article (1932 in cheese making or whatnot). If an editor seeks an extension of the moratorium then they should do so at ANI. CIreland (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at the RFC, I agree. LC should not make any further reports on this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this case set a precedent? In other words, is it valid to bring those trying to bring editors who are editing articles to comply with the MOS and consensus (i.e. date delinkers) to ANI any more (barring 3RR violations of course)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This does set a precedent. Date-delinkers should no longer be reported here, or to ANI, purely for date-delinking William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted and will comply. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Then what is the proper forum? There is still no consensus that dates should be always delinked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    122.163.25.41 reported by Pikablu0530 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [39]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

    This particular user is believed to have another IP address too at 124.124.35.194 (talk · contribs) and has been engaging in the same edit war on the same article. No reasons or discussions were given for such edits, and the edits were clearly not encyclopaedic. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h, on the grounds that what you were removing was unsuitable. However, your claim of 3RR exemption is close to the edge, be cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Squash Racket reported by User:Carpaticus (Result: No vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [44]



    User Squash Racket persists in moving and modifying the new inserted text at his will, arguing that his quoted material has priority being from a "much more important source".

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [49]


    Carpaticus (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carpaticus made THREE reverts and check the "diffs" he provided, because he is making a FALSE STATEMENT here. UPDATE: above he did not even provide diffs. He wants to mislead an admin?
    I made only two reverts, my other edits there are NOT reverts, please check the article in question.
    He sent me a 3RR warning AFTER he reported me here, but nevertheless I did not even get close to breaking the rule. The moment I saw he wants to edit war I finished reverting his edits and only made edits to the article.
    He insists to have a less reliable source first in a section of the article Transylvania instead of the research carried out by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. I showed him the url for the reference, but he still continued with the edit war. I stopped reverting his edits and added section titles to the article so that readers can navigate in the material and I do stand by my edits.
    Carpaticus was only edit warring and now he makes a report. Squash Racket (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Not all the edits listed are reverts. The first is not, the third and fourth are sufficiently unclear. However, it is disruptive by both editors to attempt to argue using edit summaries. Not only does this limit the depth of debate it also means you have to make an edit to make or rebut a point. Both editors should continue at the talk page instead, which is thus far noticeably devoid of recent activity. CIreland (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kjaer reported by User:JdeJ (Result: Blocked 12h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [50]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]

    There is a consensus among the three other editors involved in discussing the page, but Kjaer repeatedly removes the well-sourced information about the controversy surrounding the topic from the lead, claiming that he alone defines what is consensus and NPOV. Apart from edit warring, Kjaer has also taken to changing my comments on the talk page [56] and to delete warnings. [57] He's free to do the last one as he pleases, but edit warring against a consensus and changing talk page-comments by others is not the way to act.JdeJ (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 12 hours. JdeJ is also sailing close to the wind is his/her use of reversion as an editing tactic. CIreland (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guido den Broeder reported by RetroS1mone (Result: Declined)

    • Previous version reverted to: [58]
    • After edits by User WLU Nov 28 19:12 1st revert: reverts all edits of User WLU, all explained by WLU in edit summaries.
    • Nov 28 19:42 2nd revert: removes sourced about NICE discouraging so called "Canadian" clinical criteria, In edit summaries calls other editors ridiculous their edits nonsense
    • After edits by me, Nov 29 1:02 3rd revert: reverts my explained change about NICE discouraging Canadian criteria with verify and failed verification tags, removes sourced information, adds uncite POV edits.
    • After second set of edits by me, Nov 29 10:19 4th revert: edits my change that I explained from source with failed verification tag, takes out lead sentence in section that he calls superflous
    • After edits by User Verbal Nov 29, 11:10 5th revert: edits change by User Verbal with fact tag, deletes more sourced stuff.
    • After edits by Jfdwolff, sixth revert: additional changes.
    • Another consecutive group of reversions and other edits following edits by User WLU [59]
    • After edits by IP editor and User Alansohn, reverts an older edit from me here.

    In under 16 hours, four different blocks of reversions and edits of work by at least three different users, then another reversion ten hours later, then more groups of reverts and edits, user is reverting when ever another editor edits. Guido got off a month block for edit warring five days ago after many blocks past-time and since then made false edit warring reports and warnings as revenge against me and another user that were judged no vio and GdB was warned not to do it again. AFter the warn Guido added a new false charges against me to the original false report and is harassing at my talk page, all of it while he is true edit warring himself. Guido has said he is on voluntary 1RR on articles, i am very sorry it is obvious now he is not ready to stop the disruptive behavior history. RetroS1mone talk 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Only one revert by me here, and I didn't call anyone anything. It is User:RetroS1mone who keeps reverting even the least controversial edits on sight. I'm quite fed up with his behaviour, despite numerous invitations he refuses to enter in any discussion about his reverts but insist on all kinds of hostilities. Earlier today, User:Carcharoth gave me the advice to make a list of all his reverts. I think I'll do just that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Well, I spent a good while looking over the confusing history of this article. I'm not saying that nothing is amiss (equally, I'm not saying something is) but the editing patterns of GdB in the last fortnight at this article do not seem to be classifiable as edit warring. CIreland (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you that you looked at this, I disagree but may be I am not understanding 3RR the same. RetroS1mone talk 09:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, CIreland. RetroS1mone, I suggest that you read WP:EW. I agree that the text of WP:3RR as well as the directions on this page are somewhat confusing. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YcOaDtA reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: Blocked 24h)

    MythBusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). YcOaDtA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 05:07, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Removed Every Unsourced Sentence, according to Wikipedia terms. Halfway-through. Will be a long process to fix all of the article AND wikipedia as a whole.")
    2. 05:28, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254937921 by Useight (talk)")
    3. 05:28, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254937755 by Dp76764 (talk) Undone vandalism. Please add SOURCES before you undo an edit.")
    4. 05:40, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "For the 3rd time now. THIS IS NOT SPAM. I am deleting un-sourced sentences/paragraphs.")
    5. 05:44, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "There is nothing to discuss. Wikipedia policy states than no un-sourced statements should be added to an article. If you want to revert, feel free to add your sources. Otherwise, take it up with Jimbo")
    6. 05:48, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "As said before, it's only halfway done. Do fix wikipedia on such a grand scale will take quite a long time. Anyone care to help?")
    7. 05:50, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "ADMINS! Please lock this article to prevent future vandalism. ALL unsourced material MUST be removed.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User appears to be engaged in a good faith effort to remove uncited content; but has engaged in an edit war to achive that goal, despite warning on their talk page. —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned New user acting in good faith. Given an extra warning, should be blocked if he/she reverts again. CIreland (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user appears to have replied to your talk page here, then made an additional revert:
    • 06:15, November 30, 2008 (I am attempting to make WP the most reliable source of information on the internet. Without sources, this is impossible.)
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Historikos reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 1 month)

    1. 08:17
    2. 08:47
    3. 10:00
    4. 10:20

    Sterile revert-warring over a POV tag, with no actual discussion ongoing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    (Note: two parallel reports condensed into one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    This new user may be a troll, has also uploaded unsourced images of Nicolas Sarkozy, Kostas Karamanlis and Vladimir Putin, claiming that they are all his personal work. In the revert case, the user insists that there is an active discussion going on at WP:MOSMAC justifying his actions, although no comment has been made since mid September. I've reverted three times myself and will refrain from any further action, although I count at least my first two revisions as anti-vandalism as content was deleted without any explanation given. Admin Fut.Perf. and myself have repeatedly pointed this out to the user. (JdeJ (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC))>[reply]
    3RR report is actually moot now, I caught him red-handed about at least one more of his images and blocked him for persistent image abuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I've reverted that block. Sorry, I was probably too "involved" with the POV tag / edit-warring issue to have simultaneously acted in admin capacity on the image issue (although that was quite an independent topic). I'll leave further block decisions, both on the 3RR and the image issue, for uninvolved admins. My opinion on the justification of a block on both counts remains unchanged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm uninvolved in the POV tag, edit-warring or image issues, I've reviewed the matter and blocked the editor for a month for repeated fraudulent image uploads - passing off commercial images as his own, despite claims to the contrary -- ChrisO (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taraff1 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24 hours)

    Wii homebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taraff1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 02:40, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* HomebreWare */")
    2. 10:59, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254957650 by Alex378 (talk)")
    3. 10:59, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254934428 by 72.174.220.212 (talk)")
    4. 11:00, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254935419 by 72.174.220.212 (talk)")
    5. 11:00, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    6. 11:21, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254976328 by Alex378 (talk)")
    7. 12:03, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254980170 by Alex378 (talk)")
    8. 12:25, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254983540 by Alex378 (talk)")
    9. 12:34, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254984456 by 81.56.107.93 (talk)")
    10. 12:58, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254986608 by Rurik (talk)")
    11. 13:48, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254991771 by 131.111.214.93 (talk)")
    12. 13:57, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254993124 by 81.56.107.93 (talk)")
    13. 16:01, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 255006032 by 81.56.107.93 (talk)")
    14. 18:06, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 255027201 by Alex378 (talk)")
    15. 19:07, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 255036939 by Rurik (talk)")
    16. 19:12, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 255038698 by A new name 2008 (talk)")
    17. 19:16, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 255039405 by Barek (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As of 20:00 UTC, Taraff1 has not reverted again. Though his behavior on this article will not win general admiration, there is no need for a block if the war has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alex378 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: No action)

    Note: This user is edit warring within the same article as the user listed above, but attempting to insert a different spamlink than the one that user:Taraff1 (above) is adding.

    Wii homebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alex378 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 10:01, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Sites and projects */")
    2. 10:03, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    3. 13:25, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    4. 16:14, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    5. 19:26, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    6. 23:15, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* HomebreWare */")
    7. 23:28, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ Updatin description")
    8. 08:12, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    9. 11:19, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    10. 11:54, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    11. 12:25, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    12. 18:02, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    13. 19:22, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: This user has not yet reverted since the 3RR notice. Will re-post if they do another revert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No action. This editor, Alex378 has stopped reverting at Wii homebrew. That article has become a festival of socks, but another admin has semi-protected it for a few days. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    99.147.62.30 reported by dave souza (Result: Already blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]


      • Words repeatedly reinserted (without source) "In any case, the suggestion that natural selection is tautological cannot be an objection to evolution, since a tautology is a statement that cannot be false, and hence is always true. Thus, anybody arguing that evolution is tautological is inherently arguing that it is true." which, in the 2nd revert, were reinserted in the second diff for that revert.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66] given before 3rd revert

    IP shows in "Whois-search" as "Unknown AS number or IP network." dave souza, talk 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked for 24 hours by Tim Vickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). CIreland (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ScienceApologist reported by Jim Butler (Result: Stale/Moot)

    Below, ScienceApologist edit-wars, and goes to 4RR in 24 hours (last four reverts). He violates WP:TE and WP:NPA as well. Please check his block log; he is massively recidivist, and substitutes ad hominem arguments for argument on the merits.


    • Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 26 November 2008. In the ES, ScienceApologst asserted: "a LONG time ago, we came to a consensus that we should combine these two sections into one. I have done so. See talk". Rebuttal: no such consensus was ever reached, cf. archived talk, nor does any exist now.


    • 2nd revert: 23:25, 26 November 2008, reverting Levine2112. Ad hominem ES: "reverting Levine since he is a documented disruptive editor banned at Chiropractic for POV-pushing and is now continuing his campaing here."


    Comment: Note that one additional editor, Hgilbert, also reverted ScienceApologist on 00:00, 27 November 2008; Quackguru reverted back to ScienceApologist's version. Clearly ScienceApologist is edit warring against a majority without consensus, and against the wishes of a plurality, i.e. he's messing with WP:TE.

    Stale Even if it were not stale, it is moot since ScienceApologist is blocked for 48 hours for another issue. CIreland (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi CIreland -- At what point does something become "stale" around here? I filed the report <3hr after SA's last revert; you replied and deemed the issue "stale" <24hr after I filed. That's pretty quick turnaround in real time. Please explain what I need to do to avoid such stale-ness in the future.
    As for "moot", since SA's already under an unrelated 48-hour block, here's an idea: why can't another block, for this conduct, be set when the present one expires? Doesn't it make sense to be lenient when offenses are few and far between, and get tough when an editor gets involved in a string of sanctionable offenses? Particularly in the case of long-term disruptive editors like SA, whose block log I pointed to? I really don't get the logic here, and I think you're sending the wrong message by not sanctioning. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason we wouldn't set another block after the first one, is that blocks for edit-warring are intended to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Once someone stops edit-warring, the block is no longer regarded as useful, as it would be stopping someone from doing something that they'd already stopped anyway. However, once the current block expires, if ScienceApologist does start edit-warring again, he will probably be blocked or banned again fairly quickly. --Elonka 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:97.102.156.246 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 31 hours)

    Wii homebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 97.102.156.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 03:41, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 03:44, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    3. 03:45, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    4. 03:47, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    5. 13:07, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    6. 14:33, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    7. 14:36, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Play Homebrew Games on your Wii */")
    8. 14:39, 29 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 254791962 by 97.102.156.246 (talk)")
    9. 01:30, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* HomebreWare */")
    10. 01:30, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    11. 01:45, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* HomebreWare */")
    12. 01:46, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    13. 22:19, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 255040981 by Skarl the Drummer (talk)")
    14. 23:21, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "Removed Spam")
    15. 23:22, 30 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    16. 00:12, 1 December 2008 (edit summary: "")

    Note: The user has attempted misleading edit summaries, such as "Removed Spam", when they were actually inserting spam. The user may be connected to User:Taraff1, who was blocked earlier today for edit warring on this same article over the same content.

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked Update: This user has already been blocked by the admin who semi-protected the article involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ViperNerd reported by Jober14 (Result: No vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: [68]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [72] - I had to change the link since he deleted the warning off his talk page

    Based on previous edits by ViperNerd, he is a fan of the South Carolina Gamecocks. His team lost to Clemson University this weekend and now he is using Wikipedia as a means to "even things out". Even though I am a Clemson fan, my record shows that I have been unbiased in all my edits on this website. I ask for the same civility from ViperNerd but all he is concerned about is writing and editing articles to portray Clemson in a negative and biased viewpoint. This particular page has many many issues and unfortunately they (fans of USC) will not engage in positive constructive discussion about how to write the article in a neutral viewpoint. He's just causing trouble and it is dissuading passive editors from contributing on Wikipedia. Jober14 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation The three-revert-rule prohibits more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. See dispute resolution for ways to get more opinions on the contested issue. CIreland (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alastairward reported by NotAnotherAliGFan (Result: Declined)


    • Previous version reverted to: [73]



    He keeps removing my cited reference because his personal understanding doesn't seem to grasp the connection between the two sources. Both sources are reliable and therefore, he has no right to continue mutilating my edits. By the way, if I violated anything in any way, I would like to be warned and have the chance to redeem myself instead of getting automatically blocked. Thank you very much in advance. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted that last edit. It would help if you would discuss things without using terms like "mutilate" and retaining civility. Alastairward (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Alastairward has undone his last revert. Editors are encouraged to discuss the matter on the talk page instead of reverting not as well as. Please be mindful that if Alastairward had not self-reverted then I would have blocked both editors. CIreland (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:207.219.39.47 and User:204.50.180.85 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: 11:48, 29 November 2008 (probably; they're all the same size, and all edit comments are "undo")


    switch to next IP

    switch back to first IP

    Neither IP has constructive edits, outside of possibly this one. Note that I have reverted #s 3, 5, 7, and 10 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=255358041"